socks

Really good question, methinks. I picked up a book years ago by George Mackie, a missionary in the middle East. Saw it in a Border's and picked it up, it deals with "Bible Manners and Customs". In it is a part where he gave his perspectives on differences he observed in middle Eastern religious thought and Western religious thought - think he was in Syria, I've got the book around somewhere - and he put it in this way: western thought sees a God who is good and He does good things, eastern thought sees good and says God has done it. The difference is subtle and has taken me a while to digest it, still am really. I found the book when I was doing some reading after a series of events that had formed that perspective in my mind and I found it to be a real change in how I thought about what I "knew" in the bible. Somewhat intangible at first and a little hard to nail down. When I read through Mackie's book and saw that it helped. Where I went with it is not exactly what Mackie was saying but he did note that both kinds of thought could benefit from the other's perspective, in his opinion. I don't verse it as "idiom of permission" but I kind of see a relationship there....that the ongoing affairs of this life, this world, our world and lives, aren't governed so concretely by "laws" and "principles" that everything happens as a direct result of something that I do or don't do that is either aligned with or against those laws and principles. Put another way I am not the sole cause of good or evil that happens in my life nor is God the active agent in each and every instance. Rather, from my perspective, I would give "God the glory", the credit as it were, for everything that is good as best I I understand it and see it. I credit God as the creator and see Him in everything. From that view God doesn't cause catastrophic events to occur, directly. The world is man's domain and the world works as it does. If there is good in the world at all, God is the source but God does not personally cause each and every good thing to happen, nor every bad thing to happen. God "allows" both good and bad to happen. (Rain falls on just and unjust, the sun rises and sets for everyone, etc. ) It is a slightly different way to view how God "works". I see it as a way of thinking that informs many different kinds of religious and philosophical thought. For what it's worth, I've never quite gotten Bullinger's dispensational view of the Bible and this kind of thought, "idiom of permission" although he explains it. It's a little too hmm, cut and dried, "mechanical", although I see the curves of change in the bible's history. Not sure if this contributes, I'd have to dig out some more stuff to document it but for what it's worth....:)

I'll take up that cross with you Jerry. "Yet how many times did Way leaders do "word studies" that track the use of a single Greek word through the New Testament based on the assumption that the use of that word was a string of divine pearls?" Yes, the "word study" - god, don't get me started. Armed with concordance and Bible, the damage that can be done. In it's simplest form this is a wonderful study aid to the reading of the Bible. But that weird obtuse Way-kind of logic, that after some foray through the N.T. looking at the "greek word for" something, plodding through verse after verse and then coming to some quacked conclusion that made no difference to anyone about anything remotely worthwhile but inevitably tied into some great "principle" or.....geez. Yeah. Hamerstein, what think ye of this: http://www.chem.tamu.edu/class/fyp/mathrev/mr-sigfg.html It's not mine but as a launching point for discussion.... I roam the world of metrics from time to time and the ideas around "accuracy" and "precision" have taken on specific meanings to me. How would you define them, from a math perspective?

There we go with the debate again. I appreciate your post Roy, thanks. Anytime you, Loftus or anyone else actually wants to discuss anything related to or in that article, go for it. So for, not much of that's going on here. You're right about one thing - no one that Loftus is talking about is going to hear him out with that funky attitude he's got, he's trying to make people look foolish, and no one likes that. Tell you what - you get Loftus to clean his act up a little and I'll meet you both half way. Otherwise, you're not going to like what I have to say about him or his ideas. I've been kind so far. I can let it go at that. Till then, my friend.

"We don't live in a vacuum and some of us are familiar with at least one of the men whose student he claims to have been. Dr. William Lane Craig is pretty well known in Christian circles....he is an avid debater and prolific author. Dr. Craig is very up front about his education and journey, so some of us are even familiar with that aspect of the equation and when Loftus alludes to the nameless, faceless Profs he has dealt with, my mind jumps to Dr. William Lane Craig" Really, a good point. The article says that one with faith uses everything but reason and logic to define and defend their beliefs and faith. "Believers" deny, avoid, use "special pleadings" and have all sorts of personal motivations and weaknesses driving them, per JL. Atheists such as JL - none of that. According to JL, it's all reason, logic, facts just the facts, blue sky all the way. It's a case made that conveniently drops any personal motivations from one side and loads the other side up to sky with them. How convenient. I suspect that JL has turned to demeaning the opposing side simply because he's come to an irreconcilable difference in belief, in personal life, professionally, perhaps in all. Now he demeans the other side and attempts to reduce it to lesser force, marginalizing it's validity and thereby moving it off the table. But for JL I think it's clear he's not going to the next course, he's going to keep picking at that plate - and likely for both personal and professional reasons. The ideas and issues are not served by that kind of approach, from either side. One could say that "most former graduates of theological institutions are conflicted and unreasonable". That wouldn't be true though. It would conveniently disparage them however and reduce their value towards any discussion. Much as he does in his article to those "believers" he talks about.

This horse is still moving, let me fix that. (and thanks. But I will openly admit I'm not Christ Like, so we can breathe easy, I make no claims on that count and never will.) As to the writing skills of Loftus - I think he wrote rather well, and put down what he meant clearly and succinctly. I had no trouble understanding what he said and based on his other books and writings I think I got a clear idea of what he meant in this. So, as a writer, he did fine at least by me. I got his points. He wears his credentials rather large, I've seen. I don't. I actually don't have any to flaunt so it's easy but I won't blather on about the number of books, lectures, hours spent, days pondering or years working. Everyone does what they do. When the rubber hits the road we all fall out of bed pretty much the same way. That he screws around with some of the material he uses deserves to be challenged. His use of Socrates for instance - now anyone who wants to challenge my version is welcome to and it is challengeable - but I don't agree with Loftus's interepretation - that the more one knows the more one should doubt. I don't see that the socratic method is directly a use of doubt but I suppose I could be squeezing it a little or a lot........to question yes that's different than doubt though. Learning would require ongoing analysis IMO, yes and the effect of even mastering a field to one's own best ability invokes the understanding that there is still yet more to learn if one is to progress. But to doubt as a result of what one knows through learnng - in the way that I think Loftus uses it here - is simply wrong and more of an extrapolation on his conclusions, that faith is wrong and that one should doubt their faith. (and I don't believe that issues of spiritual faith are best served by external analysis as I alluded to, a subjective internal method is required and more authentic for the components of mind and thought. ) But faith as a quality of human life is normal for all humans. The fact that a "Socrates" is quoted leaves lots of room to quote a Jesus for that matter - since it's not known if a man Socrates ever actually existed. So in that way I still find it very ironic that anyone would invoke "Socratic" ideas in that way, I don't. I did at one time but my general investigation of philosophy has caused me to steer away from that. LIkewise - and this is just me - I don't always quote Jesus directly because I believe at this point that many of the basic ideas - but not all - of what Jesus is written to have said are things that can be drawn from many sources including the Torah - that's not rocket science IMO. However the "living logos" idea is very defining to Jesus Christ and provides a context to the words of the gospels that gives them meaning. Loftus has the same problem a lot of us do - he's so sure of himself or wants to be that he uses the word "most" in this piece - "most" Believers don't seriously question their faith..... You can't do that. You can, I do, he does obviously but it clouds any discussion to generalize in that way. As soon as I jump to "most" I have to validate that and the points he makes won't fully validate that way IMO. Plus any time you tell someone "you're just like everyone else" - they're likely to say no they're not. Because they're not.

Hmmmm... Did I call Lofton's writing "nonsense".............? No. Did I make fun of his writing skills? ......................... No. I originally stated that in what he had in what you posted, a "crappy attitude". I expanded on that later to include "sucky" and a couple other words. I still think so, stand by that and have no reason to change my mind. I think- His attitude towards those of "faith".......... Is crappy. Sucks. I don't like it and won't tolerate it from others or on behalf of others. I definitely won't go through this charade again but as for Lofton, he's no different than anyone else, IMO. And his frame of mind, attitude - sucks, IMO. And actually exemplifies the very things you are talking about - but for whatever reasons you don't see it. That's fine,I just want to point that out - that from my perspective you don't allow in others what you allow in him. I'm sorry people make fun of your writing skills Roy. I know you try and none of us do more than that. However - I am not making fun of his writing skills, this has nothing - nothing - not a single thing - nothing Nothing to do with his writing sklls and the skills he uses to write his ideas out. He is in fact competent in his writing skills, IMO, and does a fine job getting across what he means. It's what he means, the meaning of his words, that doesn't wash with me. I didn't make fun of Loftons' writing skills, I did disgree with him, take his ideas in that post to task and offer a point by point set of thoughts on what he did write. And for the record, it doesn't matter to me what you say to me about anything, agree with me, disagree, or whatever you want to do. I expect you to be honest and straightforward, no more, no less. A lot of people won't even do that, so in my world, if you do that you're a leg up on a lot of people. :)

All without exception? Sorry, some things will never pass. Some things go on and on and on and on and, well, on. Of this I'm sure.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/OXwFmPwOkOY?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

The sound of a Snickers bar wrapper blowing down an empty street at 4:00 a.m. in the morning..............

Aaah! A bumper sticker?

Bumped because everyone looked much younger 7 years ago.

Glad to hear that Roy. Since no one's called Loftus any names as yet, we're in good shape. But aren't you violating your own rule? : saying nothing is the best defense

Good point. I think I often expect things to deliver more than their capacity. Jesus and the 12 - a small number, worked well, but the critical component was Christ, less the relative size of the group. (although 12 had significance) I would have to assume from the gospels and Acts that there was the anticipation of large numbers coming. They're ability to perform was human, and human activities have flaws, they develop, go in fits and starts. Jesus made it clear, they will know us by "our love", not by our corporate perfections, org charts and snappy robes. Grace, forgiveness and enough love to stick together, with the message of Christ front and center, makes for a good start for all sizes.

"The relationship between faith, reason and evidence..." Evidence based faith...."what grounds do I have for that faith".... Interesting video, there's a great deal of common ground we tread there. This states well that the core lesson of life is to learn to build the capacity for faith. "Some faith can be blind....and blind faith can be very dangerous". The quote from John would be well placed at the start of that book, to set context. I also noted the statement about a "delusion about history" within atheism", today. The tendency towards generalization in regards to the specific tenets of different religions of different ages, people, cultures, is sophomoric but widely accepted, as if the roar of the dissent is more appealing to the quiet discourse of thoughtful conversation. Noise over sound, both audible and both can drown out thought. This article is brief but interesting - http://www.uncommond...laws-of-nature/ I'm not a scientist, mathematician, or theologian. I see Lennox's logic, that the compelling argument for why things are the way they are being the universe "just is" or "because that's the way they are" is insufficient, less a reason and more a description of the result. Of what, I ask? If nothing, so be it. But if it were of nothing then where does that place me? I'm fine with being the current iteration of anything, but not of nothing, that doesn't quite make sense. There's an essential kernel there that's required whether I like it or need it or not, in my view. No one measures the distance traveled of something that had no start. That the one who measures doesn't care what was before the "0" in his graph doesn't mean there was nothing and without it there would be no 0, 1, 2, 3, etc. If it were me I might be able to say "that's not my area of interest" but I would not be able to say that there was nothing there. I can see an atheism that would say "I don't want to concern myself with that area". I can't see an atheism that would say "there cannot be an area there to concern myself with". That seems hmmm, wrong, on face value. Thanks for the link!

Yes, indeed geisha. It's a good book, I'm enjoying it. Oh to be a man of no faith! Free from the treachery of the well that promises water but in whom lurks deceit for there can be no water but the water that resides in my belly! The foolish lower their bucket only to be disappointed time and again, let sand be their drink! Yes, to be free from the untenable promise of "tomorrow" for tomorrow never comes! Only now, this moment! A past that haunts like the ghost of those who never really were and a future that rolls like the fog, beautiful from the hillside but cold and without body when it arrives. Now, only now! and this! That which is and nothing else! Therein lies the sublime pleasure of Reality, relieved from the yoke of faith. Free! Free! Free at last! Follow? Yes, faith no more, Christianity specifically is about following. "To follow is to choose" is how I might put that. Following starts with a choice and continues that way. To disconnect the processes that produce the choice to follow would become counter productive. Then, a member of a flock wouldn't be following, they'd be - dunno, maybe getting pushed along in the press perhaps or falling out of bed one day and forgetting to get back in later, which happens too I guess. While I wouldn't think to add to the canon of scripture I might footnote what seems to be obvious in the admonitions of Jesus, the phrase "Follow Me, and bring your mind and brain, you're going to need both". Indeed, without either the choice to follow would not be possible. In fact the use of history, quotation, parable, metaphor, question-and-answer by Jesus all indicate an interest in inciting thought and reason to serve this seemingly foulest of things, "faith". We lose something if we redefine "follow' to exclude thought and choice....think about it - to follow is to travel and to travel is to reach a destination. Sight seeing tours do abound (keep an eye on your luggage!) but in life's journeys we aim to arrive somewhere, if that be only to the end. We don't want to lose that part of following, be it alone or in a group. Jesus describes Himself as "the way" - there is a destination. Ultimately though, to be as "children" and accepting those little ones as we might ourselves want to be accepted...... "Talitha cumi"....! There is also a very fundamental benefit to being part of a group. Try eating only what you grow or pick or gather or catch. Reading only what you write. Seeing only what you place in front of yourself. Sleeping only under the stars on the bed you make. It may be one of the most basic realities, that we are all each of us, only one, in and of ourselves and in that way we are alone, like it or not. So the urge to gather, to share, to "become as one" is not all that strange, and perhaps one of the most natural inclinations we have. True, normal, essential to survival. "Survival of the fittest"....? Can an independent thinker survive in a group? I would contend such a one can and will and to the extent each one is will be the extent to which that one flourishes, to the benefit of all.

organizational/practical leadership skill sets of r#@hard/don wierwille/art pol!ng who dealt with project and educational management. Yes, that's an interesting point. Later in the 80's smaller minds got a hold of the PM discipline and processes and the way it came out of the Way Nash was just useless. I didn't know that much about it then but when something works and helps, it works and helps. It did neither in the Way's rendition, it just mucked things up more. Clearly recall the big move to get more "professional" then and how field staffers needed to be more manager oriented, as if that was a stroke of spiritual genius. The Way had grown, yes. "Management" issues involved morality, ethics and application, depth in counseling and pastoring and evangelism. What generated from the Way was, in a word, lame but it seemed to make field positions seem more professionally oriented, like career jobs for the committed dimwit or something. It was as if the Way looked at it's people and decided they didn't have enough of the right kind of people, they wanted more education, more professional experience, most connections, more $. All those kids, those reformed hippies. If you'd gotten involved as a youth it quickly became a cold fish smack in the face, seeing the politics at work. Had the Way invested professionally in the people that came on board in a logical methodical way, offering choices, considering options and growing internal resources using the 'home grown' model - all the bluster and fire might have served it well. Instead it seemed to be moving into a Next Phase, winnowing out those it didn't consider useful or didn't want to deal with. It looks like this is burned in the consciousness of some off shotted groups I read about. The old timers have been raised on cut-and-run, they know how to kick people out, they saw it, may have been themselves. It's easy to blow something out and start over. It's not nearly as easy to work things out amongst a group of peers and work towards a common goal when you don't get everything your way or don't have your own little niche in which to reign. . Accreditation - I don't know what requirements were then but I'm sure the issue was funding and transparency. A Library was mentioned, forget if it was NK or RC, needing a library. Buuuuut, I doubt that was the issue, now. One of but not the biggie. VPW carried all the major books he'd used in the Way Bookstore so that really wasn't the big secret it seems now - if you bought the books and read them you saw what came from where. VPW benefitted from both trust and transparency. Like with Bullinger, I'd cracked those appendixes soon after getting the big hard cover version, still have it. Once I understood what he'd used I just moved on, it was referenced in PFAL. Same with Kenyon and others. I didn't take issue with his lack of footnoting and specifically id'ing areas he'd lifted and copied. Today I do, because of what it indicates - a research ministry that advocates deep study of the bible to learn it's historically accurate meaning and relies on the work of others - that won't credit and document for future use all of it's sources using a repeatable method and recognizing commonly accepted standards in the publishing world. That doesn't work, long term, if you want to be taken seriously, it's fine I guess if it's basically "vanity" publishing of your own stuff to a small audience. No less right but for family and friends it'll wash I guess. VPW didn't want the state and fed's getting into his world. For whatever reasons he had, can't blame him for that. But the Way originally indicated as far back as 1969 they were actively seeking accreditation, and probably earlier I'm sure. In those short years after a lot of people got involved, and then they came up with the RC solution, and then they didn't even really set up the processes to fully support that, it was treated as more of an add-on, so-what, don't come for that. Even today old timers hoot about that not being important or how they just "wanted the Word". Fine, but it was important, still is and The Way could have had the opportunity to build something that would last. $ was around and spent. If someone had said, well we can lock down our accreditation stuff this year and get it in place or we can get these two motor coaches - I'd have voted for the accreditation. I think others would have too. Interesting discussion and turns of thought Sky. So long ago. I have to dust off most of this to respond so I don't know how much sense it makes, probably not a lot.

Yeh, it was '79 -80. The coming and going between campuses was just out of whack sky, agree completely. It was kind of bizarre really. There was an emphasis on duplicating what had happened at Way in New Knoxville in Kansas and Indiana locations, the "heart" of it, etc. This was a basic life lesson for me. Took awhile - you know, you can hammer a nail and bend it and then keep whacking at it, re bending it back and hammering away at it but after a few tries when you see it won't go in, you....just keep trying different methods of getting that nail to go in? Or pull it, grab another and keep going....? If I were looking at being a "learning organization" with best practices in place but always looking to improve if better comes along - as the Way stated about itself - then the gap there was painfully clear - what was being learned about how to be better and what of that was being used? Not a whole hell of a lot. I knew the Way was a home grown thing going in, that was obvious. Being a part of the build was what a lot of people wanted to do. But it wasn't "our" build, it was VPW's. ("god's" by any other name). His dog, his pony, his show. All the rattle about being "on" God's Word and protecting the "mystery" in what was being done ended up producing distrust and failure, instead of success. Something ain't right about that. It's not that hard. He, we, made it out to be so difficult. It's not but it does require time, commitment and willingness to learn as one goes. VPW didn't really want to learn - that's not a guess, it's based on the facts. His never ending contention that he just couldn't get "people to listen" was whine with extra cheese. There were plenty of people listening. Saying something's true whether it comes to pass or not is a very clear concept and removes the measure of success from a result to the effort. That's....okay, but there's a lot more to that and if one goes that route they will have to be vary clear on what they're doing and why..

Can he get an amen! <br> <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/CnJKcnHGv2U?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Not familiar with this particular movement by brand name, no. From the "organic church" website: http://www.organicchurch.com/ The concept of organic church is just like anything else organic, unspoiled by human hands. In his book, Frank Viola says that an Organic Church is not a theater with a script, but a lifestyle, an authentic journey with the Lord Jesus and His disciples. He also indicates that an Organic Church is born out of spiritual life, not constructed by human institutions and held together by religious programs. Browsed a bit, that's about it. I sort of get what they're talking about, although the idea of a gathering of humans that's "unspoiled by human hands" seems a kind of quirky idea if not impossible. Human handling of any kind changes what it handles if we're talking about things that grow. If one chooses to eat the berries that grow on the bush in spring, drink their water as it flows from the ground and sup on the fish that swim into their arms, that an organic life lived would be. Anything else probably has some handling to get from the environment to the table. But yeah, organic I guess meaning the source material feeding it is primarily spiritual with the least amount of added whatever, so it's organically grown from the best sources. To johnj's point - my word for it long term would be "unwieldy". The organic thing sounds good on face value but to link another buzz word, "sustainability" .... how will it perform long term? Saying that the church is a spiritual entity - I get that. Saying that the members of that entity exist as described in say, Ephesians - I get that. Saying that the best and primary way for those members to exist and function is in a small slice of that, I'm not so sure about that. A part of the greater whole, yes. But if I over emphasize the smaller slice I risk disconnecting from the larger whole. So at least the smaller slice would have to remain an active part of the larger whole, on some level. Where I might agree, not sure if this is one of the intents of organic churching, is that the large, "corporate" gatherings as they're called don't serve all interests and needs as a total solution. And those larger churches, denominations inevitably will have some tradition, some form and function that may or may not be appropriate. Same will go for the smaller home groups too though. To be truly "organic" in today's society one has to disconnect from the social grid and network of services and go literally "off the grid". That may be good for some and for a time but long term? Not even necessarily healthy, IMO. Same could go for this kind of thing. A mix, rather than an either/or this/or that approach works for me and seems to be allow for maximum flexibility and function.

Y'know, Sky, I think this year was the entire 4th corps. The year was split in two - first 1/2 in Indiana, and 1/2 back at the Way Nash in New Knoxville. One of the stated reasons was to help with the Family Corps there, the other as part of "continuing" the WC training. It was a very difficult year I would agree, on several fronts. And VPW wasn't there all the time, he came and went. RC coordinator was Bob M, with Dave S-ge the 4th corps coordinator. By this time I'd say the Corps program was bottomed out. I'm sure others would disagree or feel that it had never had value but as far as the effort being made it was really really really all over the road, disorganized between Kansas, Colorado, Indiana, whatever they were doing in New Mexico and of course back at the ranch in New Knoxville. The lack of a coherent enterprise wide vision was evident and there was all of that movement from one campus to another throughout the residence training, it was inefficient to say the least, and a mess from an educational standpoint. "WOW", sure, but how the effort was actually stacking up to make a significant contribution to that was unclear to put it mildly. You don't need all that crap to do that. And if the program was failing on different fronts so badly the previous graduates were thought to need further training - well that spoke for itself. Considering to look at it for what was really "broken" though had already started as you state and I do think many of us were at cross roads of various types. Steve S and I talked about this a couple times, and the idea that this put him and others in neutral and that nothing of great value was being done or being offered, "nice" on some counts but wasted time on most others. It just wasn't working, although the machine was moving forward. In fact at that point it seemed clear that a Way Corps program was no longer necessary, if the original goals were still being acted towards The Way was an organization dedicated to sustaining itself, and all that goes with that, the politics, bureaucracy, obfuscation etc. etc. etc.

Yeh, it's like tossing a salad, figuratively speaking. In '68, PFAL on film was only a year old. The previous first effort was pretty lo fi - there were some promo copies floating around for awhile years ago, but I'm sure they were destroyed or are under lock and key now as it looked really home grown. VPW took some sound advice and scrapped that one and they got the financing for the film version we all saw. After years of doing live versions it was in the can, tape and film. The content had been offered over a period of years before that but the filmed product itself was only a year old. Prior to that the record's scattered mostly likely because the Way was still in early build stages with a much different membership demographic. Picture VPW in his home basement, then getting the family land set and on paper, financing the groundbreaking for the "BRC", beginning to build, etc. He wanted to come off like a player and had some experience but it was a mix of then-and-now, and then wasn't that long ago yet...course to teenagers it seemed like a deep past. There was no "worldwide Way", there was a guy and his family and close supporters in start up phase. PFAL was a class, an event that could only happen when VP taught it. The idea of PFAL as a piece of media that could be mobile and offered in multiple places at the same time was a very specific vision. I'm sure that for those who saw the value of it as a means for people to learn the bible it was a very significant step forward. The Way as an organized entity with presence in other cities was much different then, no Corps, no Ambassador program, no leadership meetings, none of that yet. But obviously VPW had that in mind himself as his efforts in California, Indiana, Florida, other states quickly took on a structure resembling any business expansion. Where it may have been a "move of the Word" to participants, the organizational model was simmering up as it grew. And it would not have grown as it did without California and then New York. Although relatively small numbers-wise, the cross pollination across the nation happened quickly - within just a couple years Way Corps 1 was underway, VPW's intention to have "50 men", trained and assigned out across the country was exploding in numbers and the New Knoxville farm was already over run with people, outsizing it's capacity as a small family farm plot of land. For anyone who came on the scene after 1967 it seemed like a work in progress, and very open to new ideas. Yet as everyone saw in virtually every effort that was undertaken for the next 10 years or so VPW was at the center, insisting on direct control. IMO that earlier period was impacted by the formalizing of PFAL on transferrable media, tape and film, allowing for it to run in multiple locations at the same time. This first step allowed VPW to concentrate on building the business around it, the properties, the programs, etc. etc. You could see this transition in how VPW's public personae morphed, changing from hot bible preacher mode to ruthless CEO to funky hunter-dog guy to golf shorts and knee socked weird guy, back and forth week after week. In 1968 he dressed like an uptight preacher in navy blue suits and seemed quaintly disconnected from the times but anxious to embrace diversity, encouraged it even. But push came to shove and soon enough that changed. I can't honestly say what the numbers in 10 year increments would show after analysis. I'm not a real data guy but have some familiarity with that discipline, so I don't know what it would show other than growth patterns. What those patterns show in relation to different criteria would be an interesting view and set alongside known major events. (for instance - what if say, after Advanced Class '79 for 6 months was examined - what results and artifacts if any are there to be seen and then what do they mean? or the roll out of Martindale's new Foundational series.....) Some things would probably be obvious but others may be not so, the obvious. Dunno, it's been a thought that's pattered around the lobes for years. WW's links might indicate some stuff there.

The pattern yes. The numbers ballooned at one point and then leveled. Most of the people on GS now probably didn't know Peter Wade, for instance or ever meet him. They came on after his departure, same with many others. The big exodus began mid-80's as we now know and hit stride late 1986 lasting for what, couple years of consistent activity. If not for Chris Geer it would have taken longer but would have happened inevitably albeit at a slower pace and arguably could still be going on in the absence of that upset of the apple cart. A good filter might be event/cause rather than event/person (not to reduce the importance of a person but a single person's leaving would not have the same impact from person to person). For instance: - Wierwille hands over the CEO position to Martindale. (transfer of acting authority) - Wierwille dies (one way to leave the Way). - - Chris Geer guns for the BOT's. (posthumous posturing puts chokehold political pressure on pompous puppets of the Way) - Martindale declares war on the Corps and anyone within spitting distance. (Paranoid Post-POP ....ing contest from the Big Unit of the Way) - Martindale gets sued with his pants down. (curtain of shame pulled away to reveal CEO's true colors, giving new insight into how the "yardstick of success" was being measured) - etc. This is just idle participling, of the possible relationships, etc. It would be interesting to know the numbers of new growth, new "grad" entrants to the Way's records, in 10 year increment starting in 1868. 68 - 78, 79 - 89, 90-2000 and then the first 10 years of the 00's. That would probably cover the history of the GS audience. Either way it's going down, will continue to go down until it bottoms out. After I left in '89 I gave it 10 years. It was out of gas much sooner, although it certainly kept rolling.

My 6 cents on the future of the Way Nash and how it's business profile will shape over the next 5 years - I see the dynamics at work there going in a predictable direction, based on what they do - and what they don't do. The internal organization will continue to build a tight bureaucracy, political, driven by the need to maintain it's self in stasis and generate sufficient income to support the headquarters and it's board, "department heads" and minimum required staff. Basically keep itself fed, the roof overhead and the lights and heat on. The external organization will just be what they're facing to the public now - "biblical research", some classes and outreach efforts, the same memorialized offerings of past work reworked that gets refreshed for any given year. How connected to the internal org a local coordinator is on the field will determine how much they pump the Way's headquarters vision. Some states and areas will be easy - peasy no pressure, others more hard core hard line. In some ways much like it has always been but - no outreach, no real growth, no increase in numbers and therefore no new income projected. On one hand the "real" Way will be the gang on Weirwille Road, not interested in maintaining any standards or a specific vision, interested primarily in maintaining it's own existence. The "field" will eventually dissipate into small loosely connected pieces and end up nearly non-existent in any practical way.

Being the low life, tawdry cad that I am, I have always always ALWays wondered what in the world went through the minds of the parents who, after going through all of the possible names for their upcoming child, decided on "Oral". That being said, I'd drink too. No, actually I'd just change my name to something less uh, weird.

Innerestin' geisha. I've been nibbling at a book I got last fall - "You Are Not Your Brain" - ever heard of it? "Neuroplasticity" and a kind of practical application of it. How our brains adapt. I got to it through some of Oliver Sacks's stuff, "Musicophelia", his work. Ego is of course, the sense of self we all have. And everyone appreciates themselves, we have to. Everyone appreciates other things, they have to. Pride and fear are good examples of qualities that, by another name, would not carry the negative connotation they do for many of us. I'm familiar with the negative meanings but they are not automatically negative terms. "Pride" is a common knee jerk response that comes up when there are disagreements between people. I think the biblical uses of those kinds of words in context are very clear and understandable. A worthwhile study. I see a lot of the religious poking at each other that "you're prideful" etc. is not useful, it's just people rangling over something they disagree on and inevitably someone throws out the "pride" thing. I challenged Roy's use of it because it seemed that the discussion veered into focusing on that rather than the original post or the response to it. We started talking about what we were talking about and why and the way it was being talked about - instead of talking about the topic. Plus, my position wasn't directed by what I'd call "pride". I've just thrown out some stuff, some well cooked, some still baking, some half baked. But I can't help it if Loftus reads like an over inflated bag of stale hot air, euphemistically speaking of course, (takes one to know one right? ha!) and seems to have his tees in a wad over what other people do with their faith which wouldn't be any of his business were he not a former religious figure - other than that he's a citizen with ideas and an opinion......thus my response, etc. etc. etc. etc. Etc. and stuff. Loftus in that article was pointing out the irrelevancy of faith and did a poor and kinda weird job on it. I claim to have faith and I COULD DO a better job of refuting and challenging it. Loftus and others like Dawkins are on a mission - and they openly state they want to reduce and eliminate if possible the religious, theological, "faith based" voice. Dawkins himself marginalizes it to the point that he states he can't see why those kinds of opinions and ideas would be worthwhile in any serious discussion about anything and feels that debate only serves to validate the religious side and make it look like a reasonable viable point of view. I tried, hey. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. (most of the time )